Posts Tagged ‘Theology of the Body’

Refuting Abortion Ideology’s Core Idea

Thursday, January 14th, 2016

Those who oppose abortion on grounds that are –

1) moral (abortion as the unjustified killing, ergo, murder of the innocent and defenseless) and

2) demographic (abortion in worldwide practice disproportionately eliminates females through sex selection, thus causing population imbalance leading to male immaturity/lack of commitment and thereby to pornography addiction, rape, human trafficking, and sex slavery, causing therefore even more oppression of women)

– sometimes omit going to the philosophical heart of the matter by refuting abortion ideology’s Core Idea: that abortion is the ultimate answer to Freud’s famous dictum that “Biology is Destiny.”

The Core Idea of Abortion Ideology can also be restated: In order for a woman to be truly free of biological destiny, that is, her role as a mother, the baby must die as subject to the woman’s will to power. Woman’s right to choose becomes woman’s right to kill, a moral equivalent of a war of independence for woman. Killing the baby, in the minds of the abortion ideologists, as ugly as it is, definitively counters the destiny of biology.

The Core Idea that “Biology is Not Destiny” unites Abortion Ideology and Gender Ideology, and will lead ineluctably to what I have called the “Reduction of Motherhood.”

Abortion Ideology represents only yet another instance in history that the oppressed kill not their oppressor, but another totally dependent on the oppressed, yet redefine this killing of the dependent one as an act of freedom, despite all the while not altering their own predicament of oppression. Abortion Ideology, like all ideologies, is thus subject to Gödel’s proof of eventual logical self-contradiction.

Freedom is not gained by destroying someone dependent on you, no matter how one may dress up the killing – unless you define freedom as being alone with your oppressor, keeping in mind that sometimes, your oppressor becomes yourself – the very definition of Hell.

The definitive answer to Abortion Ideology, and thereby Gender Ideology, flows from the continual rediscovery of motherhood, and of fatherhood in relation to motherhood. As a practical matter, unless human reproduction is moved to Brave New World laboratories exclusively, women and men will continue to discover the meaning of motherhood and fatherhood through their loving relationships.

This loving force cannot be stopped, except by a police state beyond any known to human civilization that would be needed to limit reproduction to laboratories. It is not likely that gender ideology will choose or succeed in establishing such a police state, although such a police state would be their own “Ultimate Solution” against natural motherhood. Gender ideology will therefore attempt to place laboratory reproduction on the same legal, moral, and social par with natural reproduction, and continue to reduce the status of natural motherhood, as I wrote earlier, to the status of the hoarding of pets.

The alternative to such a grim future is the transformation of human society into a loving community, in which no woman is forced to be a mother, but motherhood and its great goods are freely chosen, without resorting to abortion. This transformation can grow – one loving couple, one man and one woman – at a time.

Gender Ideology will therefore ultimately fail, because it lacks the means to destroy embodied reproducing gender itself. Gender Ideology is the societal metastasis of higher education political correctness, an unsustainable canon of self-contradiction: therapy to change gender attraction is very wrong but sex-reassignment surgery is very right. Gender theory is the antithesis of embodied gender in fact.

Embodied gender complementarity of females and males continually reinvigorates the human race, and continually reinvents loving intimacy. It just takes one fertile woman and one fertile man to restart human society and culture, despite all the efforts of Abortion and Gender Ideologues bent on dystopian sterility and eugenic fantasy, the latter being the centuries’ old panacea of the super-rich.

Abortion remains, and should always be seen as, a tragic act of desperation and weakness: powerless to eliminate her oppressor or to free herself from a terrible constraint, a mother kills her child. A whole culture of art, literature, religion, statecraft and philosophical special pleading has grown up trying to decorate and sanctify this tragic act, but the fact remains, abortion is the tragic killing of the innocent and defenseless. Abortion ideologues sometimes attempt to reduce abortion to a banal act, like blowing one’s nose, but few take such exaggeration seriously. Abortion is a killing.

The “Commonweal Catholic” has never forgiven St. John Paul II for coining the phrase “the Culture of Death.” Despite the hostility of Abortion Ideology to Catholicism, there are some Catholics who still would like to embrace the culture Abortion Ideology produces rather than step away from it.

For the sake of those wishing to embrace the culture, I offer another tack: One can choose the destiny of Creation, instead of simply negating the destiny of biology. When motherhood and fatherhood are gifts freely accepted, the need for Abortion Ideology recedes.

Many Catholic thinkers smugly dismiss the thought of St. Edith Stein without doing a fraction of the work necessary to probe its challenging difficulty. They do so at their peril, because her thought has the capacity to make their thought irrelevant. The essays of St. Edith Stein on woman, like the Theology of the Body of St. John Paul II, not only undermine Abortion and Gender Ideology, but show another – much more happy – way of living and loving.

© Copyright 2016, Albert J. Schorsch, III
All Rights Reserved

The views posted at sanityandsocialjustice.net are those of Albert J. Schorsch, III, alone, and not those of any of his employers, past or present.

Share

National Catholic Reporter Newspaper Steps Toward Formal Schism with the Roman Catholic Church

Sunday, April 1st, 2012

To live the authentic Catholic teaching on sexual morality today is as radically different from the current pop culture sexual mores–now apparently endorsed by the National Catholic Reporter as illustrated below–as was the radical commitment of early Christians to live their lives in a different way from the ancient pagan Romans and Greeks.

The National Catholic Reporter has unfortunately taken a big step toward formal schism with the Roman Catholic Church with its 3/27/12 editorial, which endorses the position of retired Australian Bishop Geoffrey Robinson that, according to the National Catholic Reporter:

“Rather than seeing sexual sin as an offense against God because it is a violation of the divine and natural order established by God, look at sexual morality in terms of the good or harm done to persons and the relationships between them.”

The National Catholic Reporter has thus formalized its long adherence to a 1960s consequentialist / proportionalist / situation ethics theory of morality that is separated from God’s revelation. This is a very popular and appealing theory, but it is not in unity with the Catholic faith as stated by Blessed John Paul II in section 75 and following of his encyclical Veritatis Splendor.

Please see the 2008 response of the Australian Catholic Bishops to Bishop Robinson.

Here is a link to a summary of official Catholic teaching on sexual morality. For more background on the authentic Catholic teaching on the meaning of sexual intimacy in creation, please see the original lectures given by John Paul II now called the “Theology of the Body,” also available in book form.

The Catholic teaching on sexual morality is not an easy teaching to accept, but it is a teaching that deeply respects God’s role in creation, and our human role in procreation.

The Catholic view of sexuality is not only based upon the Sixth Commandment, but also upon the First.

To hold that God is not involved in the meaning of sex is to say, in a fundamental way, that God does not play an essential role in every part of my life and in the lives of others. To reject the Catholic teaching is to say to some degree that I am my own god.

Acceptance of this Catholic teaching therefore involves acknowledging that there really is a God who creates, and then respecting God’s Creator role by not assigning God’s role to myself. To accept the Catholic teaching is to formally accept that I am not God. This acceptance is true in a very real sense to the First Commandment, to not have any other gods before God.

© Copyright 2012, Albert J. Schorsch, III
All Rights Reserved

Share